Talk:Weapon of mass destruction/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Origin

Where did this term originate? I really only remember it being used in the lead-up to the war in Iraq. --NeuronExMachina 10:36, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Err... perhaps I should modify my question. Has there been any use of this term since 1937 and the lead-up to the Iraq war? --NeuronExMachina 08:49, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yes: They are mentioned in the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention of 1972 and the Chemical Weapons Convention of 1993. [[User:ClockworkSoul|User:ClockworkSoul/sig]] 16:36, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

There is a problem in the wording of this section. "by thens did not exist at this time". I don't know how to fix it exactly. Please look at it. SadanYagci 01:59, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Iraq's WMD

I think it is pretty well established that Iraq does not have WMD. So maybe it should be taken out of the list?

07:51, 23 December 2005 (UTC) Yeh, Iraq has no WMD (some of us new beforehand...). A few hundred litres of chemicals in oil barrels with rusty lids, with some leakage into the Tigris, no doubt. Chemicals that if deployed would get blown away by the mediterranean winds into the stratosphere :P For the Iraq entry, it may be mentioned only that Iraq was accused of possessing WMD and the U.S.A. found 1 chemical trailer and a few empty dual-use oil barrels...lol... -_-

july 2006. In other words, Saddam killed several thousand Kurds with Nestles quick? And if we don't find something in an area of 170000 square miles (after we've given the enemy months of warning that we're coming) then it obviously was never there? Ok. Thanks for clearing that up for me.

November2006 To kill his own men with an airplane is something else then to be able to deploy it anywhere else. This discussion is silly: eks Hitler could kill millions of jews with gas, but could he do the same to Britain? NO cause killing people who you can get to is totally different.

Nov 2006 Why is this here? In the section about news coverage I found this line. "A poll conducted between June and September of 2003 asked people whether they thought WMD had been discovered in Iraq since the war ended" Last I checked the war was still going on...

It is very hard to follow the discussion if you do not sign your posts.--Jackaranga 23:22, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The entire discussion of perceptions attributed to what news outlet you get your news from does not belong here at all. If you are going to do an analysis of media bias, it has to be a full analysis, not limited to WMD's. The analysis also has contracting statements of 'fact'. There is statement to the effect of those who beleived WMD's were discovered, "when in fact they were not." and another statement pointing to the left over WMD's that were discovered. The fact is WMD's were discovered. They weren't the ones we were looking for, but it invalidates the '...when in fact they were not' statement.

Also, the false implication of the incomplete media bias analysis is that fox is less responsible than other news organizations in its reporting on Iraq. That cannot be stated or even implied without a FULL analysis of media bias, including the impact it would have on the demographics of viewers. It does not belong in this discussion UNLESS Wikipedia is a bias organization. SpencersDad

Electronic warfare

Electronic warfare is it mass destruction ?

probably - AI to recruit and brainwash lunatics to catch and give others the flu could be considered a weapon of mass destruction, and that is certainly based on electronic media. If you mean mass-signals-jamming and the EMP effect to destroy electronics, then maybe, but most hospitals and such are protected to a degree. Certainly if it renders a civilian emergency response infrastructure useless it should probably be considered a WMD, so electronic EMP weapons, and radiological warfare (which makes everythign radioactive), could likely be WMD if used on a city, although not if used on battlefields, as they are already...

it could be considered WMD, but one would have to ask why anyone would care what a random person might consider. The arguments above seem silly - a weapon becomes WMD when used in one way, but not in another? If you want to make such distinctions, try the word "terrorist". Martin

Salting farmland

Did Rome salt Carthaginian farmland or did it not?? See Salting the earth

Um, I think not. Salt was quite valuable, and besides, Rome, who completely sacked the city, could now use the farmlands for themselves (and did). I hear the oppression was still pretty bad. See Battle of Carthage (c.149 BC) --Uriel-238 23:31, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Questionable paragraph

From article:

This term is occasionally used in an emotionally charged and subjective manner, labelling a weapon used by an enemy as a "weapon of mass destruction" in order to rouse negative opinion against them, when in fact the weapon may not be as destructive as those traditionally not included under this category. Since this term is a subjective one without a rigorous definition, it is sometimes hard to determine when this is the case.

well, that vagueness is deliberate, as the article now clearly explains, to avoid developers of hard-to-classify weapons and new-technology weapons from exploiting a loophole.

A loophole in what? Martin

Although technology continues to increase the destructive potential of weapons, military forces in former times could achieve similar results with more laborious methods.

yup. biological and chemical warfare was very common before the modern era, including against civilian populations, e.g. smallpox blankets for natives distributed by the US government.

In the Third Punic War, the Roman Empire, victorious over its enemy Carthage, completely obliterated the city and sowed its farmland with salt to make it unusable.

During WWII, many Japanese and European cities (for example, Dresden, Hamburg, and Tokyo) were largely destroyed by conventional (especially incendiary) bombing or firestorms started by the bombing, with the number of killed over 50,000 in each attack.

The breaching of dams or dykes can also lead to mass destruction, as in the Dambusters raid. —Anonymous

The above is an argument against using the term "weapons of mass destruction". I guess whoever put it in, feels that the US shouldn't go around labelling various countries' weapons that way.

I think the point is solid and should be included - it's not the results, it's the achievement of the results using cheap high-tech weapons that can be deployed to either completely destroy enemies with no chance of retaliation (like nukes) or conveyed to them untraceably and invisibly so they have no one to clearly strike back at without enraging the whole world.

Well, that's an interesting point of view and deserves to be described. So let's describe it.

agreed.

• Who says this? names, political affiliation/agenda, etc.

that's a lot of research - let's decide the scope of the article first, then try to attribute all the various claims that we think are worth including - if there's a problem, we'll simply eliminate statements that are both disputed and unattributable.

Rather than use the wikipedia itself to attack the term, let's describe the political, military and/or scientific views of named advocates who agree or disagree with the US view. --Ed Poor 17:11 Dec 5, 2002 (UTC)

why is the US view the standard? the UN view ought to be the standard.

How about some named advocates who agree with the US view? Don't have a dual standard here... Martin

False statement, removed

Removed this statement because it isn't true....

The term weapons of mass destruction could be seen as a 'loaded' phrase, and has only become widely used the 21st century. Conventional weapons such as tanks are of course, capable of mass destruction. Typically, the phrase is only used when referring to those weapons possessed or potentially possessed by an opponent. For example, a military commander would not say 'We have weapons of mass destruction'. They would say 'We have a strategic defense force'. Therefore use of the 'WMD' phrase can be considered partly as a psychological tactic, since most reasonable people are opposed to 'mass destruction', but would support 'defense'.

Has the US ever referred to its nuclear arsenal as "weapons of mass destruction"? Has the UK referred to its nuclear subs as weapons of mass destruction? I think it's entirely reasonable to point out that leaders who are eager to point to enemy weapons as being WMD seem reluctant to refer to their own weapons as WMD.

WMD's aren't weapons that the enemy has. WMD's in general are weapons that you don't want the enemy to have.

yes, true, but the semantics of the term 'mass destruction' aren't at issue, since the qualification of the weapon is always deliberately vague.

the semantics of the term are at issue when someone removes a statement because he disagrees with the semantics. You can argue that the statement cites no examples or sources, or that it is not encyclopedic in quality, but calling it untrue reeks of astroturf.BlackFlag30 (talk) 03:03, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

There are a lot of examples of military doublespeak, but this isn't one of them.

no, this is diplomatic doublespeak, designed to include anything that can be eliminated from the world scene without a fight. thus the USA has no WMD by definition, although it has a military nanotechnology weapons research program, and regularly kills people with robots (typically Predator drones).

Yeah, which means where the current article says "and hopefully never will be" (used in warfare), robotics ought to be on the list of technologies that ARE presently used in war, not the list of those that "hopefully never will be".

I don't know if you realize this, but Predators are still man-in-the-loop remote controlled vehicles. They certainly don't make autonomous engagement decisions. --The Centipede 01:30, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

More WMDs

Article also requires links to genetic modification where android potentials are discussed, and to genetically modified insect which has been proposed as a delivery vehicle for agents like Valium (but couuld also be used for more deadly agents) ought to be added. Plus there is insufficient mention of radiological weapons which are now considered a major threat.

As to the electromagnetic pulse issue, natural EMPs from asteroid impact on the atmosphere have taken out huge grids of power/communications in the far North of North America. So this does seem like it could be a threat to civilian infrastructure.

Also the issue of brainwashing humans to carry plague, suitcase nukes, etc., is very cogent and needs more space - the Russian mob in the 90s was apparently able to hire uneducated young thugs to carry plutonium around in suitcases - the CIA and KGB (cooperating for once) caught someone carrying such stuff around in Red Square! Some of these characters actually knew what they were carrying, and didn't care, since carrying it meant a lot of immediate reward - never mind dying of radiation poisoning. So it's not entirely true that one needs a brainwashing technology or technique in order to get this stuff done.

Maybe weapons of mass persuasion is its own category, covering Columbine type stuff, 9/11 type stuff? Right now persuasion technology seems to be restricted to PowerPoint type stuff, but clearly it's more than that.

If brainwashing was science fact rather than science fiction, I'd be more agreeable to including it. As is, the article already talks considerably more about speculative forthcoming weapons of mass destruction than the ones we've already got. Martin

Is anyone else bothered by all these conspiracy theory-level ideas (and yes, I am using 'conspiracy theory' as a cringe word) being unsigned? --The Centipede 01:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

"Plus there is insufficient mention of radiological weapons which are now considered a major threat." - The problem is, radiological weapons are not a serious "threat" at all. A Boeing 767 is much more "destructive" than any radiological weapon could ever be. Putting them in the same category with biological and chemical weapons, let alone nuclear weapons, is based solely on the panic that that the word "radiation" can induce. The only purpose a so-called "dirty bomb" serves is to frighten people. If one were set off, there'd be vastly greater danger from panicked stampedes away from the point of attack than from the weapon itself. 71.203.209.0 (talk) 08:06, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

i thought that you could contract cancer from radiation so it is dangerous in a large amount which causes slow death and mutated offspring.Zagerty (talk) 22:21, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Anthrax mechanism

anthrax is due to spore, not a prion issue. Were does that ref about E.Coli being able to synthetise anthrax prion comes from  ? I found http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=98792 as the closest ref, just the expression of one of B. anthracis gene; not a prion.

Source?

• One concern met with each of the "NBC" types is that the different treaties applicable had legal loopholes, due to confusion about the line between chemical and biological weapons (e.g. prions which are not organisms but simple single-molecule proteins, and could thereby be considered either chemical or biological), and the spread of "dual use" technology through commercial channels that could easily be put to military use.

• Another concern was that most "NBC" treaties predated the ability to DNA-sequence and genetically modify biological entities (to be, make or carry poisonous substances, virus or prion), e.g. altering the well-understood e. coli bacterium to generate prions).

• The early treaties also did not anticipate nanotechnological molecular engineering methods to generate new molecules with lifelike characteristics, or to exude substances useful in chemical weapons.

• Nor, finally, did it anticipate the danger of efficient and miniature weapons-grade robotics to control all of the above, nor artificial intelligence and computer graphics to train, brainwash, motivate and guide human carriers of such weapons to their targets. Modern video game technology indeed may be sufficient to train such terrorists or suicide bombing kamikazes, including evasion of detection by guards - a classic "dual use" technology.

Very good, but who says this? This sounds like a very specific argument, rather than a generalised list of concerns - is this the arguments of a random Wikipedian, or someone famous? Martin

Grammar

"United States law defines WMD as 'to cause death or serious bodily injury to a significant number of people' using chemicals, a disease organism, radiation or radioactivity": there is a grammatical problem with this sentence. Weapons of mass destruction cannot mean "to cause", &c. -Daniel C. Boyer

• Sydney Morning Herald references Wikipedia.

Comparative destructiveness

"modern nuclear weapons are vastly more destructive than either biological or chemical weapons". This is far from obvious, at least in principle. Spanish Flu killed more people than World War I. Anyone got evidence to back this claim up? DJ Clayworth 15:16, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)

neither the spanish flu, nor World War I were weapons of mass destruction. In order to be a weapon there needs to be some control of the target and timing - it is dificult to target and time biological weapons, and the power of a nuclear weapon is far greater than either chemical or biological weapons. Trelvis 15:58, Jan 9, 2004 (UTC)

I moved the section on 'new technology' to biological weapons where the information is more appropriate - it did not fit well in this more general article on WMD Trelvis 15:58, Jan 9, 2004 (UTC)

Erroneous definition/list

According to the Federation of American Scientists (FAS), over 30 countries are "possessing, pursuing or capable of acquiring nuclear, chemical or biological weapons, and missile delivery systems as of 2000". In alphabetical order, they are:

The list omits all the developed nations like Canada, Germany and Japan which are perfectly capable of developing WMDs but don't (currently) want to do so. The list contains those countries that have or want to have WMDs. This list is about political will and ambition, not technical capability.

Change the definition or the list. GreatWhiteNortherner 17:10, Feb 9, 2004 (UTC)

Non-details

Sample showed that pretty much none of the articles linked by 'details' actually had any details of WMD programmes, so I removed them. Please feel free to add links to any articles that actually contain details. DJ Clayworth 17:32, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Who has the most WMDs?

It is just redicilous to state that Russia is the country that "holds the most WMDs". Are you totally biased? This article is a very blame for the whole wikipedia project. Sorry. —Anonymous

Agree. According to our own List of countries with nuclear weapons, the United States possess approximatrely 10,640 warheads, Russia 8,600. NTI states: "Currently, the United States has what is believed to be the world's second largest stockpile of chemical weapons, including bombs, rockets, and artillery shells that are loaded with lewisite, mustard, sarin, soman, VX, or binary nerve agents. Under terms of the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC), which the United States ratified in April 1997, the United States has committed to destroying all chemical stockpiles by April 2004. However, in September 2003, the Pentagon announced that it would be unable to meet this deadline and would ask for an extension at the Fall 2003 CWC meeting." and "The U.S. ratified the Biological and Toxins Weapons Convention (BWC) in March 1975 ... However, in 2001, the Bush administration rejected an effort by other signatories to conclude a protocol that would provide verification measures. ... A September 4, 2001 New York Times article identified previously undisclosed U.S. government biodefense projects involving a model of a germ bomb, a factory to make biological agents, and the development of more potent anthrax." [1] Get-back-world-respect 02:51, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Russia has about 20,00 nukes and the US has about half. Dudtz 9/6/05 7:20 PM EST

I have to wonder what role MIRV (multi-warhead) weapons plays in the count confusion. BlackFlag30 (talk) 03:14, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Iraq's WMD, take two

Hmmm... I think we should remove Iraq from the list.... Ericd 20:25, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

There is no reason why Iraq should be removed from the list. Altought it seems very likely that currently there is no WMD in Iraq, they definitely had and even used them in the past. I also favor suggestion that this series should be expanded to other countries that posses or have possessed WMD. Most obvious examples being nuclear states India and Pakistan.--Kulkuri 12:46, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I agree but the title Countries that may possess WMD seems definitely bad to me. Ericd 13:05, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I see your point and I changed the topic. I think this articel needs more editing for example to group this list in different categories. Those nations that have WMD, thos who have had WMD or serious WMD-programs and countries that are suspected of have them. Of course common sense should be used, since many countries have investigated WMD's at least in some level, but never serously produced them. Detailed listing of them all here would make this list maybe too long. Also many numbers and amounts of WMD within possession of dfferent countries are bit confusing. For example Russia and weapons of mass destruction says that Russia has 21,000 nuclear power weapons stockpiled and List of countries with nuclear weapons only 8,600. I know that detailed amounts are very hard to confirm or even to estimate, and different resources have different details, but at least we should have uniform information inside wikipedia and get rid of contradictory details.--Kulkuri 14:21, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I do not think we should unify our information just for the sake of not contradicting ourselves. If there are different estimates we should report it. Were there sources given? Get-back-world-respect 15:02, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

~

It's impossible to know the truth about these subjects. We will have to deal with estimates and to give source and date. IMO opinion NPOV should also conduct to give minimal and maximal figures from credibles sources.

--Ericd 18:42, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Shouldn't this page include the Template:WMD? --Josh Lee 00:49, Nov 2, 2004 (UTC)

Removed text - Old Google Bomb

I removed this today for non-notability, added by an anon user:

A prank error message found via a Google search for "weapons of mass destruction," using the "I'm feeling lucky" button used to bring up this page > http://www.coxar.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/

I'm putting it here in case anybody disagrees with me and decides that is notable enough for inclusion in its present state. -- ClockworkSoul 02:07, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Actually, I came to this Wiki discussion page to see if anyone made a note about this. While you're probably right in thinking it's non-notable, I found it interesting to see that the prank/google bomb was 'defused', likely by the US government. Must've been bothering some people in Washington, eh? --65.92.112.225 03:09, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

WMD phrase

Question: the term may have been coined in 1937; the concept may be referenced prior to 2002; but is it not the case that prior to 2002, Nuclear, Chemical, Biological Weapons were referred to as just that, NBCs? The term may have been wiped from the collective memory of the general public by media saturation of 'WMD', but isn't 'NBCs' still preferred by experts for its precision? I'm concerned that since the widespread use of WMD in 2002 was clearly context-specific POV (to obfuscate differences between the weapons Iraq more provably had, such as missiles, and usable NBCs), we shouldn't use WMD as the overall category - just describe the term. Rd232 11:57, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Not entirely. The US high school policy debate topic for 2001-2002 specifically used the term "weapons of mass destruction" and was written well before 9/11. The phrase has been dubiously used since then, but it did have some use as a term of art. You're right, though, that NBC or ABC was the preferred term in defense and industry circles.

I also agree that this article would be better off if it included some discussion of critics of the phrase WMD. This has been talked about on this page, but not edited into the main article. WMD is a fairly fuzzy phrase. The currect debates about its political use illustrate that it's inherently POV. If we want to maintain this page, we should make some note of that. Deleuze 12:59, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Professor Michael MccGwire (previously a NATO war planner, and head of the Soviet naval section of the UK Defence Intelligence Staff) says in this paper WMD took over from NBC in the 1990s:

The term "Weapons of Mass Destruction" became common currency in the 1990s. There was no longer any danger of war with the Soviet Union and the only real threat to the US projection of conventional force in distant parts of the globe were chemical and biological weapons in the hands of the target state. Both were relatively inexpensive and easy to produce, and both could be seen as the poor man's deterrent. By classifying these weapons as WMD, we paved the way for legitimising nuclear strikes against states that used chemical or biological weapons to resist Western military intervention.

Rwendland 23:55, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure what your intention was with this quote. Read this carefully and isnt the Professor presaging and proving the criticism that "WMD" and its use by government began as non-NPOV even before 2002? He is saying that by more broadly lumping together the less dangerous wmd with the most dangerous wmd under the umbrella "WMD", "we paved the way" for potential nuclear first-strikes. In the very same way, collective use of WMD can blur the distinctions between the type of wmd at hand and therefore blur, intentionally or unintentionally, the nature of the threat at hand. Frankly, this debate seems to be an exercise in PR (POV-PR) through false logic and semantics. If one says possession of WMD by a tyrant in the middle east poses a threat to the US, and that chemical weapons are a wmd, and that the tyrant has a stockpile of mustard gas, must it then be accepted that the tyrant is a threat to the US? No, but by the bulk of the population not familiar with the facts beyond the PR, it just might be accepted.--JLSWiki 22:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

If this source didn't contradict others, I wondered if a precis of that quote should be added to the article. It comes from someone who should be authoratative (but is now pro UK denuclearisation), but I've not seen a similar comment elsewhere. As well as giving more historical background, it is a crtical view which the article lacks. Rwendland 00:42, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

NBC has been replaced by NBCR (nuclear, bio, chem, radiological). and then there is the even more silly WME, "weapon of mass effect." and anyway, the whole "WMD" thing is ridiculous, because it's all subjective. if I hit you in the head with a big rock, from your perspective, you've been hit with a WMD (although not an NBCR). The term is a dodge for lazy people who can't be bothered to be specific (or who don't have a clue what they're talking about). Binkymagnus 03:22, 2005 Mar 25 (UTC)

the term WMDs

I would favour not calling them WMDs. This is a term which has been overused by the media and George Bush (you can lump in there Tony Blair and all the others). If there is a different word that the UN uses or which has been more universally used prior to the 2nd Iraq war, then I'd prefer that we use that instead. dave 01:16, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC) _____________________________________________________________

"All such weapons, save nuclear, are banned in the United States" This statement is misleading as the US has large well know stockpiles of most chemical and biological agents. While it seems that the US is slowly eradicating these stockpiles, they definitely still have them! Also, the assertion here of the policy of one government seems rather preachy. s-slater

It's not too difficult to conclude that the term WMD was revitalized for propaganda purposes. When we (the US) have them, they're strategic weapons. When someone else whose butt we want to kick has them, they're weapons of mass destruction. Personally, I think the best way to achieve npov is to reframe the WMD article as a discourse on usage of the term as a disphemism of Strategic Weapons, and discuss high-impact ordinance under a separate article. Really big weapons is a military topic. Provoking a war by saying someone else has and will use really big weapons is a political topic.

Before I turn such transformation into a personal project, thoughts anyone?Uriel-238 23:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

We have NO nuclear weapons (Brazil)

Brazil is in the list of countries with WMD. The problem is a diplomatic question, already solved. Brazil started the enrichment of uranium in Resende's (RJ) installations. USA wanted a complete inspection in Resende, stating that UN had to verify if Brazil is producing weapons. The Brazilian Authorities (notice that we have neither a dictactorship nor a war) said that it was not possible, because we want to warranty the possession of our technology. UN inspector should see Resende Installations, but NOT the centrifuges, themselves. It is perfectly possible to find that no uranium is being misused when you see just the in-out of uranium in the factory! The happy end: UN inspectors came to Brazil and said that a inspection in Brazil's way is completely secure. Even if we assume Brazil want to build nuclear weapons, UN inspectors said that we cannot. Brazil enriches uranium to use in Angra dos Reis NPP. This usage needs 5% of enrichment. In order to build a nuclear weapon, more than 90% will be needed. So, including Brazil in the list of countries with WMD is totally foolishness, it was nothing but a diplomatic - uh - inconvenience. Cannot we use this text in a entry about Resende or something else? User:Sanmartin

---

"A small number of Brazilians fear that this incident may be used by the USA to wage a war against Brazil, as happened in Iraq." <- Bah, this phrase is ridiculous! Should be removed. In every corner of the world there is at least one person that thinks USA want to attack his country...

Sidebar doesn't mention Italy

It should; Italy used poison gas against Ethiopia in the Second Italo-Abyssinian War. 68.40.107.98 22:44, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

First use of phrase

The 1937 date is bandied about but has not been confirmed to my knowledge. Wordorigins.org cites a date of 28 December 1937 in the Times (London) but a colleague who looked it up and couldn't find a the term in that days Times. Of course the day or the month of the year could be wrong, but the paragraph of newspaper quoted: "Who can think without horror of what another widespread war would mean, waged as it would be with all the new weapons of mass destruction?" correct, but unless anyone wants to read through a lot of back issues of the Times it isn't confirmed.

The UN General Assembly Resolution 1(1) 24 January 1946 talks of "atomic weapons and of all other major weapons adaptable to mass destruction. The UN has a definition of what WMD means from the 1940s as well although I can not find the precise citation at the moment.

An early use of the exact WMD phrase was in UN General Assembly resolution 1884 (XVIII) of 17 October 1963 [2] calling for no WMD in outer space, which predated the 1967 Outer Space Treaty which also used the phrase. No definition of course. Rwendland 16:13, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Evolution of phrase

How about tracking the evolution of the term? Originally, I believe, it only meant nuclear weapons. When and why did the other types get added? And by whom? How does interpretation of legal statutes affect the active definition? I ask the last question because of this example: I understand the Ohlahoma bombing was legally deemed "WMD" but 9/11 was not, and I think it came down to the nature of the "weapon" (i.e. traditional explosive device vs. improvised explosive device). Daniel Collins 03:48, 29 May 2005 (UTC)